ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Choosing Variant Interpretation Tools for Clinical Applications: Context Matters.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Functional Characterization of Variants of Unknown Significance of Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors 1-4 and Comparison With AI Model-Based Prediction.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Genomics and integrative clinical data machine learning scoring model to ascertain likely Lynch syndrome patients.BJC reports · 2025Article
- Genetic and clinical characterization of suspected retinitis pigmentosa in a cohort of Brazilian patients.Molecular vision · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pathogenicity predictors are computational tools that classify genetic variants as benign or pathogenic; this is currently a major challenge in genomic medicine. With more than fifty such predictors available, selecting the most suitable tool for clinical applications like genetic screening, molecular diagnostics, and companion diagnostics has become increasingly challenging. To address this issue, we have developed a cost-based framework that naturally considers the various components of the problem. This framework encodes clinical scenarios using a minimal set of parameters and treats pathogenicity predictors as rejection classifiers, a common practice in clinical applications where low-confidence predictions are routinely rejected. We illustrate our approach in four examples where we compare different numbers of pathogenicity predictors for missense variants. Our results show that no single predictor is optimal for all clinical scenarios and that considering rejection yields a different perspective on classifiers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.